In re K.E.M., 2012 Ohio 5652

Majchers obtained juvenile-court legal custody of K.E.M. in 2008; child born Oct 14, 2006 to Hatcher and Nesby; child lived with Majchers since Dec 2007 due to Hatcher’s homelessness and Nesby’s incarceration.
Majchers filed a petition in probate court for adoption on July 29, 2010, arguing consent was not required under R.C. 3107.07(A) because Hatcher and Nesby failed to provide adequate contact or support for at least one year prior to filing.
Hatcher objected; a magistrate found no contact since 2008 and dismissed the petition under J.A.S. interpreting R.C. 5103.16(D) for independent placement, holding consent necessary since custody order was not a true placement for adoption.
Majchers objected; the court adopted the magistrate’s decision, concluding J.A.S. narrows the statute and that R.C. 5103.16(D) requires parental consent for pre-adoption placement when no public agency or other custodian is involved.
As of May 22, 2012, R.C. 5103.16(E) was amended to create an exception for legal custodians, but the amendment was not effective at the time of the decision; the court affirmed dismissal of the petition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court properly applied J.A.S. and the relevant statutes	Majchers: consent not required under 3107.07(A)	Hatcher: consent required under 5103.16(D)	No; consent required; dismissal affirmed

In re Adoption of J.A.S., 126 Ohio St.3d 145 (2010-Ohio-3270) (defines R.C. 5103.16(D) applicability and custodial vs. adoption placement; no express exception for legal custodians at that time)
Cruise v. State, State v. Cruise, 185 Ohio App.3d 230 (2009-Ohio-6795) (statutory interpretation standard; de novo review)
Hubbard v. Canton City School Bd. of Edn., 97 Ohio St.3d 451 (2002-Ohio-6718) (statutory interpretation principles)